The underlying dispute centers on allegations that Ford F-250 and F-350 "Super Duty" trucks across four design platforms contain an insufficient damping system that causes steering oscillation, known as the "Shimmy." Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit in 2019 on behalf of individuals who purchased or leased these vehicles primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's class certification for express warranty claims and personal-use predominance but reversed and remanded on four specific issues. The district court's April 23, 2026 order outlines the precise legal questions the parties must address in supplemental briefing.
First, the court directed the parties to analyze whether variable shimmy manifestation rates across different vehicle platforms are fatal to class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The Ninth Circuit clarified that while manifestation evidence is not dispositive, it must be considered where variable rates exist across multiple design platforms.
Second, the court ordered an examination of how shimmy manifestation evidence affects the merchantability of putative Class Vehicles under state law, specifically for the South Carolina and Maine implied warranty classes. The parties must determine if this evidence undermines predominance.
Third, the court addressed fraud-based claims in California, Colorado, Illinois, and New Mexico. The parties must evaluate whether the alleged defect constitutes a "material fact" that Ford had a duty to disclose, considering recent Ninth Circuit precedent on materiality as an objective, class-wide inquiry.
Fourth, the court directed analysis of Ford's pre-sale knowledge for fraud-based claims involving the P131 (2005–2007) and P558 (2017–2019) platforms. The Ninth Circuit held that generalized proof cannot demonstrate Ford's pre-sale knowledge across all vehicles, and grouping these platforms may be improper without evidence of pre-P131 knowledge.
In addition to setting the stage for supplemental briefing, the court denied Plaintiffs' request to reopen fact discovery. The court also ordered Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend by May 26, 2026, to name a new representative for the Maine class. Failure to file this motion will result in the dismissal of the Maine implied warranty claims without prejudice.